Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”

This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:

Citizen Investigation Team has produced an important documentary video that, using numerous independent witness accounts, successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon. It constitutes a further compelling reason for this country to investigate properly, for the first time, the full story of what happened on that day.

– Dr. Peter Dale Scott

citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

At the above url, there is a link to the film, National Security Alert.

This is Dr. Scott’s statement of qualification, in full:

This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.

I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, “And we are all mortal.” I would add, “And we are all fallible.” For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

In his message giving me permission to post, Dr. Scott also said, “I am now aware of [CIT’s] ad hominem attacks on good people, which is a big reason why I am giving you this permission.” In my email to him, I had included a link to the CIT forum thread titled “Face to the Name”, where they post names and photos, and insult and attack those who question their methods, conclusions and behavior:

z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=508

My name and photo are on page 4; CIT co-founder Aldo ‘Investigangsta’ Marquis claims I have made “accusations of being disinfo” against CIT. This is not correct; I have criticized CIT’s evidence, claims and behavior, but I have not accused them of ‘disinformation’, i.e. intentionally misleading the public.

Lessons from Dr. Scott’s message:

1) Labeling people or questioning their motives instead of critiquing their evidence and arguments is not persuasive to people skilled in research and debate, and may even be offensive. Facts are facts, and offensive behavior does not change the truth, but civil discussion promotes greater understanding. Personal attacks can cloud the issues and cause bad feeling and suspicion among 9/11 researchers and Truth activists. The FBI employed such techniques effectively during their COINTELPRO operation, as a means of disrupting and distracting activists. Dr. Scott wisely asks that those seeking truth “not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.”

About the issue of “disinformation” and “agents” and all of that. I think it is best to reject labels altogether and just give the information. Particularly since there are disinformation enablers who will use these kinds of characterizations and attacks to defend CIT and their endorsements of CIT. I have seen time and time again how this is used as a straw-man to deflect attention away from the bad information and behavior. Instead of addressing these issues, enablers of disinfo/misinfo will point to the “attacks” and accusations of “disinfo” and simply ignore the information.

2) CIT claims their collection of witnesses conclusively proves that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, instead flying over the building. In his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott endorsed the assemblage of witnesses, and said, “I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.” He also said, “I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it.”

I’ve watched Pentacon and National Security Alert, and have read numerous articles and comments both endorsing and critiquing CIT’s work. While I find both CIT and the witness statements interesting, I personally do not believe the flyover theory either. The witness statements used by CIT are inconclusive, as they are in some cases inconsistent with undisputed facts, with CIT’s interpretation, and with other witness statements.

Caustic Logic/Adam Larson (no relation) collected statements of 13 witnesses from the public record that support a south-of-Citgo path- including statements by 2 of CIT’s witnesses, Terry Morin and Ed Paik:

National Security Alert contains much of the same material from Pentacon, but is updated with Roosevelt Roberts, the alleged ‘flyover’ witness, a partial quote from Erik Dihle, and new video with cabdriver Lloyde England, among other things.

I’m not sure what to make of Roberts’ testimony; he says that at 9:11 or 9:12 am (the Pentagon was struck around 9:37 am) he went outside the building after the “impact” and saw a “silver” “commercial aircraft” fly from over the top of the Pentagon to the southwest. Caustic Logic has written a number of articles examining the Roberts account- some of his statements indicate he saw AA 77 approach.

Erik Dihle gave an account to the Center for Military History shortly after 9/11. He had been in his office at Arlington National Cemetery, going outside after the fact. CIT only reports that he said, “The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell… some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going”. However, the mp3, which is available on CIT’s website, shows that Dihle completes the last sentence by saying, “somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”

thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

So far, in the nearly 8 years after 9/11, these are the only first and second hand witness accounts that possibly indicate a ‘flyover’. This is strange if the flyover is a fact, considering that the area around the Pentagon is highly populated and crossed by many roads. A View Shed analysis of a 2 mile radius around the Pentagon gives an idea of how much opportunity there was for a flyover to be witnessed.

Furthermore, 3 video cameras aimed at the Pentagon did not capture a flyover; the Pentagon and Doubletree Hotel security cameras were rolling prior to and during impact, and video was shot by a passing motorist within seconds after the impact (the camera was turned on before the smoke reached the top of the frame, and the Pentagon is in clear view).

Cab driver Lloyde England figures heavily in CIT’s latest film, due to his famous account of AA 77 going right overhead and knocking a lamp post through his windshield. There are photos of his cab stopped on a bridge directly in the official flight path of AA 77, along with a street lamp post. As England was on the official flight path and states the plane flew over him, he’s a witness that contradicts CIT’s theory. In 2007, they put out a video short about him titled “The First Known Accomplice?” National Security Alert features new footage with England. In the film, England is shown photos of his cab on the bridge and driven past the location, and he denies that’s where he was. Instead, England claims he was further east- approximately in the area where CIT claims all their witness saw the plane actually flying. While it appears that England is confused- he seems to think there was another bridge in the area (there isn’t)- CIT claims, “This proves that Lloyde was deliberately changing his position on the highway for the interview, to match up with where all of the witnesses saw the plane.” Why would England contradict the official 9/11 story, if he’s an “accomplice”? CIT does not examine this issue. At one point during the driving segment, CIT claims England is unaware he’s being recorded; for them to make this statement, it would seem they intentionally deceived him, and told him the camera was off- otherwise, why would they think he would assume that? During this segment England refers to 9/11 as having been “planned”, that 9/11 is “a world thing” and it’s for the “people who have money”, that he’s “not supposed to be involved in this”, but they “came across the highway together”, and now he’s “in it”. CIT interprets this to mean, “Lloyd in essence admitted his involvement in the 9/11 black operation, but he was cautious to not outright confess.” In my view, a more plausible explanation is that England understands, as tens of millions of Americans do, that 9/11 was planned by people with money, and given that he happened to be driving by when the plane flew over and knocked a lamp post through his windshield, he became famous and of interest to CIT, so now he’s “in it.”

If the flyover theory is correct, it means faking the damage path must have been planned in advance; as CIT states in the film, the scene with England, his cab and the pole had to be staged “in real time.” They speculate that the other poles could have been taken down and planted by the Secret Service the night before. This also means the damage to the generator, concrete barrier and tree had to have been staged. If 9/11 was a ‘false-flag’ operation orchestrated by very powerful people, why would they go to the trouble of doing this, when they could simply arrange for AA 77 to be flown into the only recently-reinforced section of the Pentagon? Conveniently, this section was nearly empty except for civilian contractors and defense accountants, and opposite the offices of the top brass. Faking the damage and conducting a ‘flyover’ would mean additional people being knowingly involved, as well as the risk of both the damage-staging and the flyover being seen and videotaped.

The film’s first section contends that the damage to the façade of the Pentagon is inconsistent with a 757 being flown into it. However, photos show there’s a 90’ gash in the base of the Pentagon with a fuselage-sized hole in the center. There are numerous photos of AA 757 plane parts outside and inside the building. These articles review the physical evidence for a 757 crash, and correct many misconceptions:

While the film National Security Alert is an interesting artifact, I don’t find it compelling- let alone “conclusive”- evidence that 9/11 was, in the words of CIT, “a false flag ‘black operation’ involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.” While I don’t accept the official explanations for 9/11, and it’s fair to say ‘9/11’ was and is a ‘deception’, no other information is presented that the official story is false, other than what CIT believes supports the theory that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, the only other ‘9/11 Truth’ organization featured in the film is Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also focuses almost entirely on information that implies AA77 didn’t hit the Pentagon. The 9/11 Truth Movement has been divided and distracted by the controversy over ‘what’ hit the Pentagon, and Establishment media and politicians have been provided a strawman that can be used to ridicule and dismiss 9/11 questions and those that press them.

While the film is an interesting artifact, I don’t find it compelling- let alone “conclusive”- evidence that 9/11 was, in the words of CIT, “a false flag ‘black operation’ involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.” While I don’t accept the official explanations for 9/11, and it’s fair to say ‘9/11’ was and is a ‘deception’, no other information is presented that the official story is false, other than what CIT believes supports the theory that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, the only other ‘9/11 Truth’ organization featured in the film is Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also focuses almost entirely on information that implies AA77 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

In addition to the questionable evidence and claims, CIT has developed a reputation for abusing people who disagree with them, and have been banned from participating in many popular online forums as a result. Lloyde England, who they’ve called “the Devil” and “a demon” is one, but they have also made accusations against other witnesses whose testimony contradicts their claims, and attacked anyone who contradicts their claims, both 9/11 researchers and Truth activists, and so-called ‘debunkers’.

For more info on CIT’s bad behavior, see their own ‘Face to the Name’ forum thread:

z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=508

And the following articles document still more bad behavior, plus other problems with their evidence and claims: